@Jebediah,
Jebediah;124430 wrote:Presumably it is argued that they are not aware of the potential risks. Although I think you would have to modify it for a more specific definition of "awareness". A 14 year old can be taught the facts, but the "risk taking" part of the brain is still developing in teenagers (supposedly), so one would argue that they aren't well equipped to deal with risk.
Exactly my point - there are other factors at play here. Maturity, age, and influence are all factors we must consider, to name a few. We cannot simply leave it at "as long as the consumer is aware of the potential risks", can we?
We must delve into what "as long as the consumer is aware of the potential risks" really means, and more, acknowledge it is not the only important factor when determining whether someone should be held morally accountable for the sale of drugs. Even an adult, intelligible enough to be aware of the potential risks of a drug, could be considered under the influence when purchasing drugs (or anything). And, I think, as an example, it would be wrong for a person to sell drugs to such a person.
hue-man wrote:
Sure it changes my mind. There's laws against selling certain things to certain people for certain reasons.
We're speaking of ethics here, not law, aren't we? Regardless, it appears what you said in your OP is not what you personally believe. You lied to us!